Can Somebody Explain To Me How There Can Be Driverless Vehicles ?

[protectionist]

It lacks instinct. But as for reflexes, the machine can be faster and more accurate. A human will react to something in the road by swerving. The machine can do the same thing, but faster. And can make the precise adjustment needed, because it has already plotted the course around it, instead of just avoiding hitting it.

Also, a person has two eyes set in the front of our head. A machine can take input from numerous cameras and scanners at the same time (or close enough that it amounts to the same thing).

And a car that can drive itself can take a drunk home safely. That alone could potentially save tens of thousands of lives.

Sounds like they've got YOU programmed. Hope your driverless car has one hell of a firewall.

 

[protectionist]

I have no idea what #1 means. Are you worried that someone will build an A bomb out of a car?

If you are so paranoid that you believe that anything with a computer can be hacked, you should worry about other shit than autonomous cars.

Are you analogy challenged ? The analogy was clear enough. No need for explanation.

And of course I worry about other things than autonomous cars. I think just about everything that our computer crazy society has endangered us by putting everything reliant on computer activity. The really critical things (electrical grid, dams, traffic lights, nuclear weapons, etc) should all have non-computer back-ups (like we didOK with in the 60s)

 

[protectionist]

That's exactly what my great grandfather said when his neighbors starting getting inside plumbing and doing away with their out houses.

Doesn't matter what they said about outhouses. You went off topic. Be more careful.

 

[BULLDOG]

I have no idea what #1 means. Are you worried that someone will build an A bomb out of a car?

If you are so paranoid that you believe that anything with a computer can be hacked, you should worry about other shit than autonomous cars.

Are you analogy challenged ? The analogy was clear enough. No need for explanation.

And of course I worry about other things than autonomous cars. I think just about everything that our computer crazy society has endangered us by putting everything reliant on computer activity. The really critical things (electrical grid, dams, traffic lights, nuclear weapons, etc) should all have non-computer back-ups (like we didOK with in the 60s)

Yep. Progress is the root of all evil.

 

[BULLDOG]

That's exactly what my great grandfather said when his neighbors starting getting inside plumbing and doing away with their out houses.

Doesn't matter what they said about outhouses. You went off topic. Be more careful.

Sure it matters, and it's as on subject as anything here. There are always some who refuse to accept progress and claim things were better before. Doesn't matter if it's not riding in a driverless car, or refusing to crap inside the house, both display the same attitude.

 

[protectionist]

Yep. Progress is the root of all evil.

Depends on what you call "progress" Putting ourselves in a higly vulnerable position (with no backup) isn't my idea of progress.

 

[protectionist]

Sure it matters, and it's as on subject as anything here. There are always some who refuse to accept progress and claim things were better before. Doesn't matter if it's not riding in a driverless car, or refusing to crap inside the house, both display the same attitude.

We're talking about driverless vehicles. Not outhouses. And an attitude about one thing, isn't necessarily the same as about another thing. Depends on the thing. Get it ? Please stay on topic.

 

[BULLDOG]

Sure it matters, and it's as on subject as anything here. There are always some who refuse to accept progress and claim things were better before. Doesn't matter if it's not riding in a driverless car, or refusing to crap inside the house, both display the same attitude.

We're talking about driverless vehicles. Not outhouses. And an attitude about one thing, isn't necessarily the same as about another thing. Depends on the thing. Get it ? Please stay on topic.

It's exactly the same attitude. Wanting to hang on to the past, and refusing to accept progress. Quit whining.

 

[protectionist]

It's exactly the same attitude. Wanting to hang on to the past, and refusing to accept progress. Quit whining.

YOU QUIT >> going off topic, and pretending you're right. Or maybe you really actually DON'T get it.

 

[BULLDOG]

It's exactly the same attitude. Wanting to hang on to the past, and refusing to accept progress. Quit whining.

YOU QUIT >> going off topic, and pretending you're right. Or maybe you really actually DON'T get it.

I'm not off topic, but as long as you whine about what you think is off topic, I;ll keep telling you that you're wrong. Just because you don't want to accept the fact that there have always been people afraid of technology advances doesn't mean it isn't a common occurrence. Some people thought the change from horses to cars was a tragedy. They thought there was no way to drive a machine through town at those speeds safely. Many claimed airplanes would never be more than a novelty. If God intended man to fly, he would have wings, and many said they would never crap inside the house. Lots of examples.

 

[WinterBorn]

It lacks instinct. But as for reflexes, the machine can be faster and more accurate. A human will react to something in the road by swerving. The machine can do the same thing, but faster. And can make the precise adjustment needed, because it has already plotted the course around it, instead of just avoiding hitting it.

Also, a person has two eyes set in the front of our head. A machine can take input from numerous cameras and scanners at the same time (or close enough that it amounts to the same thing).

And a car that can drive itself can take a drunk home safely. That alone could potentially save tens of thousands of lives.

Sounds like they've got YOU programmed. Hope your driverless car has one hell of a firewall.

I am not programmed at all. In fact, I am open minded enough to research a topic before I post on it.

 

[WinterBorn]

Yep. Progress is the root of all evil.

Depends on what you call "progress" Putting ourselves in a higly vulnerable position (with no backup) isn't my idea of progress.

Highly vulnerable position with no backup? Now you have gone off topic.

First of all, a vehicle capable of driving itself does not put anyone in a "highly vulnerable position" any moreso than driving on the interstate does.

Second of all, there ARE backups. The examples I have seen had a human present to take control if needed. Even in a vehicle with no people onboard, remote access to shut the vehicle down is easy.

 

[WinterBorn]

Some of these cars may not have a steering wheel for a driver...right?

The only vehicle I know of that has the technology to drive itself is the Tesla. It has a steering wheel. And it is currently illegal to have it drive without someone in the driver's seat.

A tesla driver was recently killed while having his car on auto-drive, while he was texting.

Darwin award -- both for the driver and for Tesla.

Actually, it turns out that the car did all the right thing. It gave 7 visual requests for the driver to take over, and 6 audible requests for the same. The driver ignored the warnings.
from: Tesla Driver Ignored Warnings Before Fatal Crash in Florida - Car Keys
"A newly published 500-page report from the National Transport Safety Board (NTSB) in to the incident states the Autopilot mode remained on during most of the journey and gave the driver the “Hands Required Not Detected” visual warning on seven separate occasions. The system also chimed on six occasions before it returned to the “Hands Required Detected” message for one to three second periods."

In another article it said the man had his hands on the wheel for 25 seconds of the 37 min driving time. If you want to rely on technology, listen to it when it warns you of a problem.

 

[protectionist]

Highly vulnerable position with no backup? Now you have gone off topic.

First of all, a vehicle capable of driving itself does not put anyone in a "highly vulnerable position" any moreso than driving on the interstate does.

Second of all, there ARE backups. The examples I have seen had a human present to take control if needed. Even in a vehicle with no people onboard, remote access to shut the vehicle down is easy.

The vulnerablity I mentioned, has to do with hacking, not what you're talking about.

 

[WinterBorn]

Highly vulnerable position with no backup? Now you have gone off topic.

First of all, a vehicle capable of driving itself does not put anyone in a "highly vulnerable position" any moreso than driving on the interstate does.

Second of all, there ARE backups. The examples I have seen had a human present to take control if needed. Even in a vehicle with no people onboard, remote access to shut the vehicle down is easy.

The vulnerablity I mentioned, has to do with hacking, not what you're talking about.

I quoted a post discussing the accident mentioned in my post.

 

[WinterBorn]

The driverless truck is coming, and it’s going to automate millions of jobs

A listing of the many, real, advantages to driverless trucks.

 

[monkrules]

"Can Somebody Explain To Me How There Can Be Driverless Vehicles ?"

Okay, relax a bit and I'm gonna t-r-y.. to esplain it to ya.

But first, it's important that you understand the theory, use, and love, of vibrators...

 

[blastoff]

Seems like the roads are already full of a lot of driverless vehicles based on some of their performances I observed Saturday during the 200 mile drive from Chicago to home.